4.3 Article

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors in iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: experience in clinical practice

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 395-401

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-017-1499-7

关键词

Differentiated thyroid cancer; Iodine-refractory; Tyrosine kinase inhibitors; Clinical experience

资金

  1. Centros de Investigacion en Red [CIBER] of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III [CB06/03/0018]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI15/01114]
  3. Consejeria de Innovacion, Ciencia y Empresa de la Junta de Andalucia [PI11-CTS-8181]
  4. FEDER funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The aim of this study is to describe our clinical experience with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and to evaluate their efficacy and tolerability in patients with iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Methods There were 17 patients (47.1% women, mean age: 65.7) with DTC iodine-refractory (9 papillary, 2 follicular and 3 Hurthle cell), treated with TKIs: 16 with sorafenib and 1 with lenvatinib as first-line treatment; 7 required second-line treatment (4 lenvatinib and 3 axitinib). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and radiographic response (determinate at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the initiation of treatment) and second endpoints were determining differences in baseline characteristics depending on clinical course and describing toxicities and tolerability. Results Median PFS was 18 months. During the first 24 months of treatment with TKIs PR rate was 35.3% (only 5.8% >= 6 months) and SD >= 6 months was observed in 58.8%. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with good and poor evolution. Adverse events (AEs) were present in 100% of patients, but most of them were grade 1 and 2. Conclusions In our population of patients with iodine-refractory DTC, treatment with sorafenib, lenvatinib, and axitinib allows the stabilization of the disease in a high percentage of cases, with acceptable tolerability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据